{"id":456693,"date":"2026-07-20T04:36:23","date_gmt":"2026-07-20T11:36:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=456693"},"modified":"2026-07-20T04:50:59","modified_gmt":"2026-07-20T11:50:59","slug":"now-you-can-say-it-climatists-are-brazen-deniers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=456693","title":{"rendered":"Now You Can Say It: Climatists are Brazen Deniers!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

An article at substack EnvironMental blows the whistle on the alarmists now deserving the label they long applied to climate realists and skeptics. The New Deniers. <\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s about time the climate cabal was forced to wear their own pejorative.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\u201cThe Church of Carbon\u201d<\/strong> is a term Doomberg coined several years ago to describe the cabal of scientists, legacy media, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs, aka non-profits), activists, celebrities and others who denominate every issue through the lens of CO2 emissions and \u201cclimate change.\u201d Members have a variety of terms to describe anyone who challenges<\/strong> the prevailing view that \u201cclimate change\u201d is<\/strong> a catastrophic<\/strong> problem for earth and humanity, and \u201cflat earther\u201d is not even close to the most derogatory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More than twenty years ago, the Church\u2019s most ardent and vocal priests
and apostles began to paint heretics with the term global warming \u201cdenier.<\/em>\u201d
The not-so-subtle term is an effort to shut down those who would dare question their religion.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The choice of term is not accidental. It attempts to liken climate religion heretics<\/strong> and apostates to those who deny<\/strong> that the Holocaust<\/strong> \u2013 the WWII stain on the history of humanity that killed six million Jews in the 1940s \u2013 ever occurred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The deranged \u201clogic\u201d goes something like this: paint those who question what \u201cthe science\u201d says with a term so ugly that they are simply beneath inclusion<\/strong> in any rational, civil debate over matters of such importance. \u201cThe opinions of people who deny things like \u201cclimate change\u201d or the Holocaust are not worthy of consideration in the public discourse over policy,\u201d or so it goes.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The now two-decade pattern of using the term \u201cdenier\u201d in this matter is worse than ugly. It shamefully denigrates the death and suffering of millions, and with the subtle wink of an eye attempts to conflate the act of asking legitimate scientific questions with human atrocities.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Educated scientists, politicians and legacy media who should have known better than to believe using the term \u201cdenier\u201d would allow them to avoid directly answering hard questions<\/strong>. The strategy was never going to succeed in the long run, and the history of science is replete with examples of its laughable failure. See the Catholic Church, Copernicus and Galileo and the earth-centric view of the universe, for starters.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Last month we published the news that the most apocalyptic scenarios of future GHG emissions<\/strong> used by the world\u2019s climate scientists and research organizations have officially been tossed in the trash heap<\/strong>, deemed by the very cabal that created them as \u201cimplausible.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Near the close of Implausible Deniability<\/a> <\/em>we posed a few questions (emphasis added):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u2026will the scientific community admit their errors and change course<\/strong>? Tens of thousands of research papers have relied on the now discredited high emissions BAU scenarios, including RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5, across all six emissions scenario frameworks. Will politically motivated climate scientists continue to push for their relevance as \u201creference\u201d scenarios<\/strong>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about the legacy media?<\/strong> Having published tens of thousands and to possibly over a hundred thousand articles depicting these cremated scenarios as the \u201cbusiness as usual\u201d trajectory the world was on, with every adverse weather event held as evidence of the forthcoming climate Armageddon, and fear their cheapest and easiest sell, will they admit that the truth was not what they chose to present?<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It only took a bit more than a month after the news first broke before the answer became clear. What is the Church of Carbon and its priests, apostles and book publishers saying? How are the \u201cimplausible\u201d scenarios being portrayed and even defended?<\/strong> Grab your giant soup spoon. It\u2019s time to give some very deserving folks a dose of their own medicine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The sky-is-falling scenarios were implausible from their conception because
they were grounded in unrealistic assumptions about energy, economics,
or demography (population\/birth rates). And despite these clear errors,
<\/strong>the people who built them and are now defending them know it.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But based on the reactions from<\/strong> most of the scientific establishment, explainer media, and climate\u2011policy world<\/strong>, you\u2019d think the only reason the apocalyptic emissions scenarios known as RCP8.5 and SSP5\u20118.5 are now \u201cimplausible\u201d is because heroic climate policies and \u201ccheap renewables\u201d saved earth and humanity in the nick of time. Nothing could be further from the truth.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Global carbon intensity<\/strong> peaked in 1960 and has been steadily falling<\/strong> ever since, with no discernible change in the rate since any of these measures<\/strong>. If \u201cclimate policies and cheap renewables\u201d have made a material impact<\/strong>, it cannot be seen in the graph<\/strong> above.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

[<\/strong>In the last 25 years world energy consumption from oil, coal and natural gas has fallen<\/strong> a whopping three percentage points from 86.1% of total to 83.2%<\/strong>. That is why no changes in the trend of carbon intensity can be seen in the first graph above. Also bear in mind that in 2025 the light green Renewables energy is only 60% wind and solar, the rest mainly biomass.]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The message that \u201cwe saved ourselves from the worst case\u201d<\/strong> is politically convenient<\/strong> even as it is scientifically laughable<\/strong>. It\u2019s a two-step dance the very climate research community that portrayed the very same scenarios as \u201cbusiness as usual\u201d might have gotten away with but for the tireless work of researchers like Justin Ritchie, Hadi Dowlatabadi, and Substack publisher Roger Pielke, Jr.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Put simply: Climate policy and \u201crenewable\u201d energy didn\u2019t retroactively
make the high emissions scenarios RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 unrealistic.
They were never realistic from their conception.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the history the new \u201cimplausible thanks to renewables and policy\u201d narrative is trying<\/strong> to omit. But it is the storyline put forth in most explainers that were rushed out to cover the high GHG emissions scenarios\u2019 implosion. [ T<\/strong>he article provides several examples of dismissive media stories, including a Michael Mann tweet, Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate Science, Marshall Shepherd at Forbes, and coverups at NY Times, Washington Post and AFP, all of which failed in the same way.]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Absent from all of their pieces was a candid reckoning with the fact that the \u201cbusiness as usual\u201d path required energy, economic and demographic contortions that were never remotely likely, even without climate treaties or \u201crenewable energy\u201d subsidies.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The ENGO\u2019s fared no better.<\/strong> The Center for Progressive Reform<\/em> \u2013 apparently tipped off to the upcoming van Vuuren et al paper announcing the new ScenarioMIP group\u2019s dropping of the high emissions scenarios \u2013 said<\/a> RCP8.5 (and by extension is successor, SSP5-8.5) \u201cremains not only legitimate, but crucial<\/em>..\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

CPR argued that scientists using the high emissions scenarios \u201care not out to shock or deceive; they are simply following the best science.<\/strong>\u201d Even if the pathway is implausible, the authors insist, using it \u201cis not misleading.\u201d  This is a distraction<\/strong> from the reality that the implausible scenario was the basis  \u201cbusiness as usual\u201d rhetoric that scared the public into believing 4\u20136 \u00b0C of warming by 2100<\/strong> was what happens if we don\u2019t pass the next climate bill. And the one after that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carbon Brief also looked the other way.  John Cook and Ken Rice at SKS accused critics of \u201cbad faith\u201d absent any admission that the assumptions embedded in RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 years earlier were erroneous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If these actors were actually interested in doing so, they should explicitly acknowledge that RCP8.5\/ SSP5\u20118.5 were erroneous by specification<\/strong> \u2013 not just rendered implausible by virtuous policy. They would stop treating as bad\u2011faith actors legitimate critics<\/strong> who specified very precise plausibility concerns a decade ago (that turned out to be correct).  And they would revise impact assessments, \u201cSocial Cost of Carbon\u201d estimates<\/strong>, and financial sector stress\u2011test designs that were built on what the scenario designers themselves now call implausible futures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

We close by pointing out the delicious and unavoidable irony.<\/strong> For nearly two decades, all of these scientists, legacy media \u201cjournalists\u201d and editors, and ENGOs have been screaming \u201cdenier\u201d<\/strong> at anyone who challenges the prevailing narrative. Yet here we stand, with the UN\u2019s own scenario development function deeming \u201cimplausible\u201d the exceedingly high GHG emissions scenarios on which these people and institutions based their endless use of the pejorative term denier<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Consider the second and third order consequences of scaring the world<\/strong> with the always- farfetched, high GHG emissions scenario projections: Young people are declining to have children based on misplaced fears their kids will have no future. $5 trillion (and counting) has been spent on \u201csolutions\u201d that could not possibly fix an apocalyptic crisis that does not exist.<\/strong> Soaring electricity costs and two lost decades refusing the one electricity generation technology in the advanced world (nuclear) that is GHG emissions free while subsidizing \u201crenewable energy\u201d technologies instead.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The New Deniers\u2122 are the actors that enabled all of these outcomes,<\/strong> are still pretending<\/strong> that RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 are important, valuable, or relevant.  In actuality, they were never anything more than climate porn and fear mongering,<\/strong> and that is as much anathema to the scientific method as the idea of scientific \u201cconsensus.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It\u2019s about time the climate cabal was forced to wear their own pejorative.<\/p>\n

More than twenty years ago, the Church\u2019s most ardent and vocal priests
\nand apostles began to paint heretics with the term global warming \u201cdenier.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":456757,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_seo_schema_type":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_wpcom_ai_launchpad_first_post":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"It\u2019s about time the climate cabal was forced to wear their own pejorative.\n\nMore than twenty years ago, the Church\u2019s most ardent and vocal priests\nand apostles began to paint heretics with the term global warming \u201cdenier.\u201d","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691823352,691818056,691840170,691818153,691819716,691818174,691843545,691843614,691819094,691842983],"class_list":["post-456693","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-catholic-church","tag-climate-change","tag-climate-denier-2","tag-climate-models","tag-climate-policy","tag-climate-religion","tag-high-emissions-scenario","tag-rcp8-5-scenario","tag-renewable-green-energy","tag-ssp5-8-5","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1UO1","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":376378,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=376378","url_meta":{"origin":456693,"position":0},"title":"Psychoanalysis on Climate \u2018Denial\u2019? (stranger and stranger)","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/25\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Climate alarmists live in a self-righteous bubble where humankind is the scoundrel. Nature is optimal and fragile; anthropogenic change cannot be good, even toward greening, warming, and moistening. Think about that nonpolluting trace gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/OIG3-39.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/OIG3-39.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/OIG3-39.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/OIG3-39.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":332169,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=332169","url_meta":{"origin":456693,"position":1},"title":"The WEF Denies Demanding the Arrest of Climate Deniers","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/09\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"An AAP Factcheck, a few wild claims, and an Andrew Doyle interview with British environmentalist Jim Dale which appears to have taken on a life of its own.","rel":"","context":"In \"AAP FactCheck\"","block_context":{"text":"AAP FactCheck","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=aap-factcheck"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0105670763-1547131127652gettyimages-908676206.1910x1000.jpeg?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0105670763-1547131127652gettyimages-908676206.1910x1000.jpeg?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0105670763-1547131127652gettyimages-908676206.1910x1000.jpeg?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0105670763-1547131127652gettyimages-908676206.1910x1000.jpeg?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0105670763-1547131127652gettyimages-908676206.1910x1000.jpeg?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":417496,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=417496","url_meta":{"origin":456693,"position":2},"title":"Dialing Back the Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence of Climate Tipping Points!","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/17\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"German experimental physicist\u00a0Prof. Gerd Gantefor explains in a recent video\u00a0why he\u2019s being made a climate denier by the fanatic parts of the climate movement: because he sees no evidence of tipping points nor the end of civilization.\u00a0","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQNkCvDn9xUOJaUU65Gi7unL5Yc8mVNGjt9yQVUcuCmdemZSKBYnKtn62DnvuTxeO6idxM55qq-boM2PobEGh8ax7htJ-5aowOMqFW0YNKrSp6KsxVcR_FZLDYhHslE.jpeg?fit=1200%2C759&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQNkCvDn9xUOJaUU65Gi7unL5Yc8mVNGjt9yQVUcuCmdemZSKBYnKtn62DnvuTxeO6idxM55qq-boM2PobEGh8ax7htJ-5aowOMqFW0YNKrSp6KsxVcR_FZLDYhHslE.jpeg?fit=1200%2C759&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQNkCvDn9xUOJaUU65Gi7unL5Yc8mVNGjt9yQVUcuCmdemZSKBYnKtn62DnvuTxeO6idxM55qq-boM2PobEGh8ax7htJ-5aowOMqFW0YNKrSp6KsxVcR_FZLDYhHslE.jpeg?fit=1200%2C759&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQNkCvDn9xUOJaUU65Gi7unL5Yc8mVNGjt9yQVUcuCmdemZSKBYnKtn62DnvuTxeO6idxM55qq-boM2PobEGh8ax7htJ-5aowOMqFW0YNKrSp6KsxVcR_FZLDYhHslE.jpeg?fit=1200%2C759&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQNkCvDn9xUOJaUU65Gi7unL5Yc8mVNGjt9yQVUcuCmdemZSKBYnKtn62DnvuTxeO6idxM55qq-boM2PobEGh8ax7htJ-5aowOMqFW0YNKrSp6KsxVcR_FZLDYhHslE.jpeg?fit=1200%2C759&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":255746,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=255746","url_meta":{"origin":456693,"position":3},"title":"The Conversation: \u201cIs acting on climate change as important as love and bedtime stories?\u201d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/03\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Unless we challenge this outrageous narrative, it is only a matter of time until some deep green politician advances a plan to \u201crescue\u201d children from those unfit climate denier parents, by placing \u201cpredatory deniers\u201d into the same legal category as pedophiles.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0AdobeStock_123574115.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0AdobeStock_123574115.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0AdobeStock_123574115.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0AdobeStock_123574115.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0AdobeStock_123574115.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":263144,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=263144","url_meta":{"origin":456693,"position":4},"title":"BBC Learning English\u2013How To Talk To A Climate\u00a0Denier","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/21\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Quite what a naive propaganda piece has to do with teaching people English eludes me","rel":"","context":"In \"BBC\"","block_context":{"text":"BBC","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bbc"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-truth-1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-truth-1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-truth-1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-truth-1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-truth-1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338720,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=338720","url_meta":{"origin":456693,"position":5},"title":"Guardian: \u201cClimate Deniers\u201d make up Nearly a Quarter of US Congress","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/07\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Climate believers claim climate skepticism is in decline, that a growing number of people are concerned about climate change. But if this is the case, why are there so many elected climate skeptics?","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0oreskes.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0oreskes.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0oreskes.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0oreskes.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0oreskes.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-ChatGPT-Now-You-Can-Say-It-Climatists-are-Brazen-Deniers.png?fit=1536%2C1024&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/456693","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=456693"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/456693\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":456759,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/456693\/revisions\/456759"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/456757"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=456693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=456693"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=456693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}